~ The way it was

Search:

What was wrong with "Old Mobility"

In order what needs to be done to create a healthier and better performing set of transportation arrangements, World Streets make a consistent distinction between what we call “old mobility” and “new mobility.” The difference between the two is quite simple. And substantial.

Old mobility was the form of transportation policy, practice and thinking that took its full shape and momentum starting in the mid twentieth century, at a time when we all lived in a universe that was, or at least seemed to be, free of constraints. It served us well in many ways at the time, albeit with exceptions, though we were blind to most of them most of the time. It was a very different world back them. But that world is over. And it will never come back.

The planet was enormous, the spaces great and open, energy abundant and cheap, resources endless. The “environment” was not a consideration, “climate” was the weather, technology was able to come up with a constant stream of solutions, builders were able to solve the problems that arose from bottlenecks by endlessly expanding capacity at the trouble points, and fast growth and the thrill of continuing innovations masked much of what was not all that good.

37 things that were wrong with Old Mobility

It does not work well in the realities that constitute the 21st century, because it is . . .

But this does not reflect the priorities and the reality of transport, our needs, and our potential in the 21st century, and above all in our cities which are increasingly poorly served by not only our present mobility arrangements; but also the thinking and values that underlie them. Our rural areas are likewise suffering and without a coherent game plan. We now live in an entirely different kind of universe, and the constraints which were never felt before, or ignored, are now emerging as the fundamental building blocks for transportation policy and practice in this new century.

It’s time for a change. And the change has to start with us. You see, we are the problem. But we can also be part of the solution. So off we go!

Share this:

Like this:

2 thoughts on “What was wrong with "Old Mobility"”

I would like to develop the idea of taking “old” and “new” mobility in a literal
sense.

When did the key concepts of public transport develop ? These can be taken as
follows.

1. Passengers travel on a vehicle that they neither own nor hire for exclusive
use.

2. The vehicle plies on a route without prior indication of specific demand.

3. The vehicle is open for anyone to use.

4. The vehicle (or other vehicles in the system) serves a variety of places so
that it can cater for most of people’s end to end journey. (The antithesis of
this is a ferry service that just covers the river crossing component of a
journey the rest of which would be walked, ridden or travelled by private
vehicle.)

My question therefore is when and where did a transport system incorporating
these elements first develop ? Is there any source for information about the
origins of public transport ?

Modern demand responsive systems dispense with 2 above. I think that the
requirement to prebook can be an inconvenience for travellers but it is not
fatal to the concept of public transport (and it can bring benefits in terms of
better services). However some modern substitutes for public transport, e.g.
dial a ride buses for disabled people in areas where every “normal” person is
assumed to have access to a car, also dispense with 3 and 4, and I regard them
as abdicating from the responsibility to provide for people’s transport needs.

Simon,
A point that strikes me, that you didn’t mention in your list, is what happens after this “public transport” is codified. Suddenly the “vehicle that they neither own nor hire for exclusive use” must be owned and used exclusively for the purpose of public transport. I can’t pick you up and give you a ride in exchange for money. I can’t use my small car for personal use as well as public transport use. My insurance requirements change. The government gets involved.